After reading Adam Winkler's Gun Fight and reading the treatment of the debate by Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, I had further confirmation that there are certain issues in American life ostensibly infused with disproportionate moral import where the advocates for one side or the other, aside from the shrillness and sanctimony that accompanies said advocacy, usually conduct their debates in ways that result in their losing a considerable modicum of respect [which they might not have to let bother them] and, more importantly, credibility [which they might want to think about].
In theory, it sometimes doesn't matter which side of a debate is right. It's more satisfying to watch insufferably sanctimonious advocates for one position or another--sometimes, it's both sides in a particular debate--try not to have their brains explode when confronted with serious paradoxes. These are especially endemic to the gun, death penalty, gay marriage, abortion and immigration debates. Something having to do with Eros and Thanatos, perhaps; but these are more pronounced in the US than anywhere else.
The recent botched execution of Clayton Lockett further amplified the capital contradictions. From the left, they had to deal with the fact that if there ever was a poster child for the death penalty, Lockett was it; aside from the fact that clamoring for violation[s] of his rights invariably meant that the rights of his victims were ignored or deemed less important, he continued to present a clear and present danger to numerous individuals--both inside and outside--even while on death row.
From the right, the attempts to pretend that the process is humane while state governments chase their own tails trying to purchase the needed drugs and the added Keystone Kops-like attempts to revive Lockett just made them look ridiculous. The truly honest ardent death-penalty proponents might have had to own up to the fact that somebody might figure out they actually WANT the process to be painful: the same Supreme Court that declared that executions violate the 8th Amendment when they are "nothing more than the purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering; or [] grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime"--aside from implying that some pain and suffering is not "purposeless and needless", and can be administered in "proportion to the severity of the crime"--went even further when it declared that "the expectation of pain and terror on the part of the defendant" was such a part and parcel of the death penalty that it therefore, ipso facto, could not be cruel and unusual.
[I've been told by various medical professionals that if states wanted to truly dispatch the condemned quickly and painlessly, 15 well-placed fentanyl patches would do the trick, the whole process running its course in 5 minutes.]
Now to keep my brains from exploding, and just in case people may have missed my previously stated positions on execution and gay marriage--and since I don't remember writing about abortion and had just a fleeting treatment of guns--here they are in a nutshell:
Guns: the 2nd amendment does allow for individually-owned weaponry AND for serious regulation of firearms [just ask Justice Scalia], even to the point that we should have a federal registry.
Death Penalty: the death penalty needs to be kept on the books for, as Rabbi Aharon Soloveitchik put it, "extraordinary threats to public order". [Clayton Lockett and Malik Nidal Hassan qualify.] But the process needs to be transparent [which states make a mockery of when they render attempts at drug procurement and compounding to be "state secrets"] and equitable [cue the associated racial/socio-economic imbroglios. Either way the system stinks.]
Abortion: as far as government involvement goes, it should be safe, legal, and rare. I would call its employment as contraception without mitigating circumstances [economics don't count] morally dubious at best, but there are cases beyond even rape, incest and threats to the mother's life that I think mandate that the process be allowed even up to crowning. Personhood legislation is ridiculous; it is never equivalent to infanticide. And any attempt to ban contraception is not even worthy of consideration. The left has its own special paradoxes to deal with in this arena [Kristen Powers especially nails it] but basically, they are easy to explain: conservatives want small government, less regulation and more privacy, except here; liberals want to government to protect the disadvantaged [they would sooner protect endangered animals than human fetuses, and--I won't say someone--something is getting hurt], except here.
Gay marriage: restating what I wrote in 2008--my religious principles as I understand them preclude me from full-on advocacy, but that's theology, and other than the purely theological, there is no truly logical reason to morally oppose homosexual relations between consenting adults. Conservatives have failed to make any salient secular case for themselves in this arena and should stop pretending that it can be anything but a religious issue. All other arguments are ontological.
Oh, and immigration: we should take a cue from Mexico's laws--2 years in the clink and deportation for the first offense, 10 years in the clink and deportation for the second offense. And a really big wall on the Southern border. Plus, this will have the added bonus of keeping the private prison lobby happy if they're forced to release everyone convicted of low-level drug offenses, with a much bigger pool to draw from. Or--we could just annex the rest of Mexico and finish the job[s] we started in 1836 and 1848.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Responses to Incitement
One might understand from UN envoy Staffan de Mistura’s comments about the recent riots in Afghanistan why the UN consistently gets it wrong.
De Mistura essentially blamed the riots and the deaths that resulted on the act that ostensibly “provoked” it, the burning of a Koran in Florida. De Mistura was unequivocal in his proclamation that “free speech” did not cover offenses to religion.
De Mistura is, of course, wrong. But one might actually understand why he said it: he was afraid for his, and his charges’, lives. Especially when the victims of the riots had absolutely nothing to do with the Koran burning by any degree of separation. One wonders why American troops weren’t targeted: could it be that the rioters feared superior firepower?
Another UN’er who got it wrong was Richard Goldstone, and this week, he admitted it. The Israeli response was notable in its absolute 180 degree divergence from the Afghan response: the Israeli interior minister invited Goldstone to see for himself what actually happens when Hamas terrorizes southern Israel. One can only imagine a parallel invitation from an Imam or other religious figure to one of Pastor Jones’ congregants to see what the “real” community of Koran readers are like. [Then again, it would likely be an invitation to a beheading.]
De Mistura essentially blamed the riots and the deaths that resulted on the act that ostensibly “provoked” it, the burning of a Koran in Florida. De Mistura was unequivocal in his proclamation that “free speech” did not cover offenses to religion.
De Mistura is, of course, wrong. But one might actually understand why he said it: he was afraid for his, and his charges’, lives. Especially when the victims of the riots had absolutely nothing to do with the Koran burning by any degree of separation. One wonders why American troops weren’t targeted: could it be that the rioters feared superior firepower?
Another UN’er who got it wrong was Richard Goldstone, and this week, he admitted it. The Israeli response was notable in its absolute 180 degree divergence from the Afghan response: the Israeli interior minister invited Goldstone to see for himself what actually happens when Hamas terrorizes southern Israel. One can only imagine a parallel invitation from an Imam or other religious figure to one of Pastor Jones’ congregants to see what the “real” community of Koran readers are like. [Then again, it would likely be an invitation to a beheading.]
Thursday, February 24, 2011
1989? 1918? 1979?
We might think—or hope—that the spontaneous uprisings in the Middle East are reminiscent of the Velvet Revolution[s] of 1989. One might even draw a parallel between Nicolae Ceausescu and Col. Khadafy: one leader who actually resisted the uprising ended up paying for it with his life [which many are likely praying for, in this case].
However, aside from the uncertainties inherent in any sudden regime change, especially in areas with no tradition of a truly republican rule of law [never mind democratic], and aside from the fact that Iran waits to fill any power vacuums that develop as a result of the widespread agitation, one might actually find a more salient parallel with the events that took place following World War I.
Following the Great War, when numerous ethnicities agitated for homelands under the principles of self-determination and old empires that had largely been intact for nearly a century crumbled under their own weight, the map up Europe was not only redrawn but its political makeup changed overnight, largely not for the better. In many cases, sclerotic monarchies were replaced either by revolutionary dictatorships [Hungary being one example] or very unstable republics [Weimar]. And, eerily reminiscent of Iran today, the newly formed Soviet Union waited in the wings to take advantage of any power vacuums that would result.
Additionally, the perception that the Middle East has been America’s private oil reserve parallels—however loosely and inaccurately—the colonialism of the post-1918 period. By extension, the ever looming specter of political Islam may be seen as a distorted version of self-determination, as the faith remains the center of the lives of much of the protestors, even as it remains a question as to whether the faith itself has propelled any of the current revolts.
The world—and especially the United States—has convincingly demonstrated that it was not ready for this. And while the endgame probably won’t mimic 1989 or 1918 [and, hopefully, not 1979], it remains to be seen what truisms are shattered and what new ones arise to take their place.
However, aside from the uncertainties inherent in any sudden regime change, especially in areas with no tradition of a truly republican rule of law [never mind democratic], and aside from the fact that Iran waits to fill any power vacuums that develop as a result of the widespread agitation, one might actually find a more salient parallel with the events that took place following World War I.
Following the Great War, when numerous ethnicities agitated for homelands under the principles of self-determination and old empires that had largely been intact for nearly a century crumbled under their own weight, the map up Europe was not only redrawn but its political makeup changed overnight, largely not for the better. In many cases, sclerotic monarchies were replaced either by revolutionary dictatorships [Hungary being one example] or very unstable republics [Weimar]. And, eerily reminiscent of Iran today, the newly formed Soviet Union waited in the wings to take advantage of any power vacuums that would result.
Additionally, the perception that the Middle East has been America’s private oil reserve parallels—however loosely and inaccurately—the colonialism of the post-1918 period. By extension, the ever looming specter of political Islam may be seen as a distorted version of self-determination, as the faith remains the center of the lives of much of the protestors, even as it remains a question as to whether the faith itself has propelled any of the current revolts.
The world—and especially the United States—has convincingly demonstrated that it was not ready for this. And while the endgame probably won’t mimic 1989 or 1918 [and, hopefully, not 1979], it remains to be seen what truisms are shattered and what new ones arise to take their place.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Arizona
As inappropriately ironic or ironically inappropriate as it may be to say so, the left has shot itself in the foot once again.
They may have had a legitimate—however flimsy—argument about the use of target imagery in politics as perilous if they restricted their argument to issues relating to gun control and gun culture; after all, it was a very loose purchase policy that allowed the murderer in Arizona to acquire his weapon and ammunition with relative ease.
Instead, the left decided to go after the entirety of the debating style of the right to score political points, mostly because they find it hard to shout back effectively.
Interestingly, Fox News chief Roger Ailes has called for a calmer tone from his side and has challenged the left to do the same, pointing out that both sides of the debate use target imagery as ubiquitous political metaphor.
In any case, indications from outlets such as the NY Times and MSNBC are such that they don’t seem to want to let up in this debate irrespective of the what the wishes of Rep. Giffords might be once she wakes up.
They may have had a legitimate—however flimsy—argument about the use of target imagery in politics as perilous if they restricted their argument to issues relating to gun control and gun culture; after all, it was a very loose purchase policy that allowed the murderer in Arizona to acquire his weapon and ammunition with relative ease.
Instead, the left decided to go after the entirety of the debating style of the right to score political points, mostly because they find it hard to shout back effectively.
Interestingly, Fox News chief Roger Ailes has called for a calmer tone from his side and has challenged the left to do the same, pointing out that both sides of the debate use target imagery as ubiquitous political metaphor.
In any case, indications from outlets such as the NY Times and MSNBC are such that they don’t seem to want to let up in this debate irrespective of the what the wishes of Rep. Giffords might be once she wakes up.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
South Korea: Pacifism Redux?
One sees, on occasion, bumper stickers [usually courtesy of Code Pink, but the sentiment probably predates them] proclaiming that "War Is Terrorism". The unspoken corollary should be "Pacifism is Murder". It might be ironic that another longtime ally of the US, South Korea, has been forced by political consideration involving matters outside of its own security to be forced to sit tight while under direct attack from a historical sworn existential enemy. I guess it isn't just Israel.
One personage who didn't buy into the classic doctrinaire pacifist fallacy was Yitzchak Rabin; despite, with great misgivings, having decided to embark on the Oslo process, he realized two things that have eluded other [if not all] peace processors: one, you make peace with your enemies, not your friends--meaning that said enemies don't suddenly become your friends; and, two, peacemaking is, counterintuitively, a messy business [as evidenced by his comment in the immediate aftermath of Oslo that "Arab governments do not operate on Western democratic principles". He knew who he was working with, and wasn't suffering from the illusion that a "new Middle East" was about to be created.]
Certainly we don't need to be reminded of the fallacies of doctrinaire pacifism and peace processors. But everyone else does.
One personage who didn't buy into the classic doctrinaire pacifist fallacy was Yitzchak Rabin; despite, with great misgivings, having decided to embark on the Oslo process, he realized two things that have eluded other [if not all] peace processors: one, you make peace with your enemies, not your friends--meaning that said enemies don't suddenly become your friends; and, two, peacemaking is, counterintuitively, a messy business [as evidenced by his comment in the immediate aftermath of Oslo that "Arab governments do not operate on Western democratic principles". He knew who he was working with, and wasn't suffering from the illusion that a "new Middle East" was about to be created.]
Certainly we don't need to be reminded of the fallacies of doctrinaire pacifism and peace processors. But everyone else does.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Corrections
WE NOW KNOW that the Obama Administration was planning nall along to drag the political center as far left as possible, and when he made overtones during his inaugural about governing from the center, this is what he meant to happen.
WE NOW KNOW that the American people don’t want this, but the Administrsation and its leaders really didn’t care. This was a case, as they saw it, of enacting a program of social justice with or without anyone’s consent.
WE NOW KNOW that the Tea Party may become a force to be reckoned with on par with what the Christian Coalition used to be. Even if it remains an idea more than a movement, without a clear leader or tangible center of gravity [other than Sarah Palin], conservatives ignore it at their peril. Despite the fact that a few of their more visible prominent candidates lost high profile races [specifically, the O’Donnell and Angle losses], Tea Party gains far outweighed the losses.
WE NOW KNOW that Sarah Palin is not necessarily a lightweight on the order of a Dan Quayler, or even a Dubya. She has been positioning herself to run for it all ever since the last election ended, and she’s figured out how to do it…and get rich at the same time.
WHAT WE DON’T KNOW yet is whether there is a possibility of an analog to Clintonian “triangulation” occurring, whether Obamans plan to work with the new majority or take the stance of becoming a new party of “no”—that is, “no” to compromising with the new class. [Dick Morris has written that Obama’s program is so far left that no compromise, and hence no triangulation, is possible.]
It might just be right at this moment that Obama believes so strongly in his program that he’s willing to sacrifice his second term the same way he sacrificed 15 percent of his party’s House seats and the Speaker’s gavel. When LBJ passed the Civil rights Act, he commented that the Democrats had lost the South for generations. One wonders whether Obama thinks his program’s element of social justice is as lofty as Johnson’s and therefore worth the political price. Judging from the sympathetic media [CNN. MSNBC, et al] attempts to whitewash the magnitude of the electoral correction, one would think that the media certainly hopes not, but the question would remain when the President would ever get an inkling that he harbors two contradictory concepts in his head: social engineering and further electoral success.
WE NOW KNOW that the American people don’t want this, but the Administrsation and its leaders really didn’t care. This was a case, as they saw it, of enacting a program of social justice with or without anyone’s consent.
WE NOW KNOW that the Tea Party may become a force to be reckoned with on par with what the Christian Coalition used to be. Even if it remains an idea more than a movement, without a clear leader or tangible center of gravity [other than Sarah Palin], conservatives ignore it at their peril. Despite the fact that a few of their more visible prominent candidates lost high profile races [specifically, the O’Donnell and Angle losses], Tea Party gains far outweighed the losses.
WE NOW KNOW that Sarah Palin is not necessarily a lightweight on the order of a Dan Quayler, or even a Dubya. She has been positioning herself to run for it all ever since the last election ended, and she’s figured out how to do it…and get rich at the same time.
WHAT WE DON’T KNOW yet is whether there is a possibility of an analog to Clintonian “triangulation” occurring, whether Obamans plan to work with the new majority or take the stance of becoming a new party of “no”—that is, “no” to compromising with the new class. [Dick Morris has written that Obama’s program is so far left that no compromise, and hence no triangulation, is possible.]
It might just be right at this moment that Obama believes so strongly in his program that he’s willing to sacrifice his second term the same way he sacrificed 15 percent of his party’s House seats and the Speaker’s gavel. When LBJ passed the Civil rights Act, he commented that the Democrats had lost the South for generations. One wonders whether Obama thinks his program’s element of social justice is as lofty as Johnson’s and therefore worth the political price. Judging from the sympathetic media [CNN. MSNBC, et al] attempts to whitewash the magnitude of the electoral correction, one would think that the media certainly hopes not, but the question would remain when the President would ever get an inkling that he harbors two contradictory concepts in his head: social engineering and further electoral success.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
From Republikarma to Barackarma
He plugs one leak, and a bigger one develops. The President might want to conjure up the spirit of Nixon and call the plumbers.
One can never truly say whether the tide has turned, and whether the various conservative tendencies that used to pop up to bite Republicans in the ass has abated somewhat, and now the Democrats’ almost genetic propensity for political self-destruction will now assert itself in its truest form. The President, who was such a beneficiary of the Republican refusal to play by their own rules and the economic mess that resulted, now has created himself a dual quagmire, almost completely of his own volition.
The first irony involves BP. No one can blame him directly for the disaster, and the culture of deregulation and corner-cutting that led to it is a particularly conservative invention; but, Republicans will not be blamed for it, because even when the disaster reached the proportions that it did because they did not see the need to perform any mea culpa for it [it helps immensely that they were the minority power]. Instead, the President looked both impotent and hypocritical, because he couldn’t stop the leak faster and he was loath to actually punish BP too publicly, oil companies—even foreign ones—being not only too big but too important to fail. This despite the fact that he was considered to be a true environmentalist president.
The second irony involves the Afghanistan war and the leaks surrounding both this and the previous Administration’s conduct thereof, which seems to be reminiscent of the incidents surrounding the Pentagon Papers’ revelations of a Democratic administration’s prosecution of a war they believed to be unwinnable. If this the moment where the President has truly assumed ownership of this war, it was certainly not in the way he intended: he will be saddled with the responsibility of things he had no control over at the time [Bush’s policies] because the current leaks indicate he has no control over events now, if he ever did. Attempts to blame the previous administration—which even Nixon realized wouldn’t work in 1971, which was why he tried to quash the Papers—will not only backfire; it would remind the public that there was another war that everyone was making a fuss about that seems to have been forgotten about will continue to be forgotten about, and Obama will find out just how recursive karma is.
In short, Obama has succeeded in taking what might have been once been considered two major conservative-created failures and making them his own. At this point, Republicans might actually best be advised to rest on their laurels to a point, because if they don’t and they continue their infighting, they might remind the electorate of why they became the minority party in the first place. Instead, if they sit back and let the Democrats continue to fail the way Rush hoped they would, they might reap the greatest benefit come November 2010, and maybe 2012.
One can never truly say whether the tide has turned, and whether the various conservative tendencies that used to pop up to bite Republicans in the ass has abated somewhat, and now the Democrats’ almost genetic propensity for political self-destruction will now assert itself in its truest form. The President, who was such a beneficiary of the Republican refusal to play by their own rules and the economic mess that resulted, now has created himself a dual quagmire, almost completely of his own volition.
The first irony involves BP. No one can blame him directly for the disaster, and the culture of deregulation and corner-cutting that led to it is a particularly conservative invention; but, Republicans will not be blamed for it, because even when the disaster reached the proportions that it did because they did not see the need to perform any mea culpa for it [it helps immensely that they were the minority power]. Instead, the President looked both impotent and hypocritical, because he couldn’t stop the leak faster and he was loath to actually punish BP too publicly, oil companies—even foreign ones—being not only too big but too important to fail. This despite the fact that he was considered to be a true environmentalist president.
The second irony involves the Afghanistan war and the leaks surrounding both this and the previous Administration’s conduct thereof, which seems to be reminiscent of the incidents surrounding the Pentagon Papers’ revelations of a Democratic administration’s prosecution of a war they believed to be unwinnable. If this the moment where the President has truly assumed ownership of this war, it was certainly not in the way he intended: he will be saddled with the responsibility of things he had no control over at the time [Bush’s policies] because the current leaks indicate he has no control over events now, if he ever did. Attempts to blame the previous administration—which even Nixon realized wouldn’t work in 1971, which was why he tried to quash the Papers—will not only backfire; it would remind the public that there was another war that everyone was making a fuss about that seems to have been forgotten about will continue to be forgotten about, and Obama will find out just how recursive karma is.
In short, Obama has succeeded in taking what might have been once been considered two major conservative-created failures and making them his own. At this point, Republicans might actually best be advised to rest on their laurels to a point, because if they don’t and they continue their infighting, they might remind the electorate of why they became the minority party in the first place. Instead, if they sit back and let the Democrats continue to fail the way Rush hoped they would, they might reap the greatest benefit come November 2010, and maybe 2012.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)